Using HTML5 DOCTYPE but no apparent new-to-HTML5 markup

And then there’s Facebook. Rumor has it they’re using HTML5 features like the History API while still bearing an XHTML DOCTYPE. I was also told they use video but all the videos I saw were Flash-based. It’s possible that more is going on—who knows, maybe Farmville is all HTML5 now—but I was only willing to put up with the user experience for so long.

Some notes:

I didn’t run a spider script to verify which HTML5 elements, if any, were being used on a site. Instead I surfed around using a user stylesheet that highlights HTML5 elements and looked for dashed red outlines. If they were there, the site got “uses HTML5 markup”. If I didn’t see any, then “no apparent HTML5 markup”. This may mean I miscategorized a site or two, in which case sorry. Even if not, these lists won’t stay current for more than a couple of weeks, so regard this as a single snapshot in time, not the whole movie.

In my limited and purely anecdotal peerings, far and away the most commonly-used HTML5 element was section. nav appeared to run a distant second.

Any site that uses font replacement is using HTML5: canvas. I didn’t list such sites, so bear that in mind. (Sorry, Beano.) I just hope such sites change their DOCTYPEs to match.

I did not list any site that lacked a DOCTYPE. I don’t care if the HTML5 DOCTYPE is optional, that doesn’t mean any DOCTYPE-less page is using HTML5. Or, if it does, my next step is to write a MeyerHTML DTD with an optional DOCTYPE and then charge you all $1 per site for using invalid markup in violation of the terms of the DTD’s license. And then I’m buying an island. Oahu seems nice.

Comments are switched off for once partly because I don’t really want another faceful of politics right now, and partly because attempts to post links to other HTML5 sites will end up in the spam trap and frustrate posters. Feel free to go nuts on your own sites, of course.

Over the weekend, Aaron Gustafson and I created a tool for anyone who wants to resolve a series of CSS transforms into a matrix() value representing the same end state. Behold: The Matrix Resolutions. (You knew that was coming, right?) It should work fine in various browsers, though due to the gratuitous use of keyframe animations on the html element’s multiple background images it looks best in WebKit browsers.

The way it works is you input a series of transform functions, such as translateX(22px) rotate(33deg) scale(1.13). The end-state and its matrix() equivalent should update whenever you hit the space bar or the return key, or else explicitly elect to take the red pill. If you want to wipe out what you’ve input and go back to a state of blissful ignorance, take the blue pill.

There is one thing to note: the matrix() value you get from the tool is equivalent to the end-state placement of all the transforms you input. That value most likely does not create an equivalent animation, particularly if you do any rotation. For example, animating translateX(75px) rotate(1590deg) translateY(-75px) will not appear the same as animating matrix(-0.866025, 0.5, -0.5, -0.866025, 112.5, 64.9519). The two values will get the element to the same destination, but via very different paths. If you’re just transforming, not animating, then that’s irrelevant. If you are, then you may want to stick to the transforms.

This tool grew out of the first Retreats 4 Geeks (which was AWESOME) just outside of Gatlinburg, TN. After some side conversations betwen me and Aaron during the CSS training program, we hacked this together in a few hours on Saturday night. Hey, who knows how to party? Aaron of course wrote the JavaScript. Early on we came up with the punny name, and of course once we did that the visual design was pretty well chosen for us. A free TTF webfont (for the page title), a few background images, and a whole bunch of RGBa colors later we had arrived. Creating the visual appearance was a lot of fun, I have to say. CSS geeks, please feel free to view source and enjoy. No need to say “whoa”—it’s actually not that complicated.

So anyway, there you go. If you want to see the matrix(), remember: we can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.

I just shipped off the last of my drafts for CSS Pocket Reference, 4th Edition to my editor. In the process of writing the entries, I set up an ad-hoc test suite and made determinations about what to document and what to cut. That’s what you do with a book, particularly a book that’s meant to fit into a pocket. My general guide was to cut anything that isn’t supported in any rendering engine, though in a few cases I decided to cut properties that were supported by a lone browser but had no apparent prospects of being supported by anyone else, ever.

For fun, and also to give fans of this or that property a chance to petition for re-inclusion, here are the properties and modules I cut. Think of it as the blooper reel, which can be taken more than one way. I’ve organized them by module because it’s easier that way.

The backface-visibility property from the 3D Transforms module. This is one I’m already reconsidering, but I haven’t found any indication that anyone besides Webkit will be picking it up in the near future. Still, I did document the rest of the 3D Transforms module so I may add this back in during the tech review stage.

rotation and rotation-point from the CSS3 Box module. These have been effectively replaced by the 2D Transforms module, but the Box module hasn’t been updated since that happened.

Everything in the Flexible Box Layout module. There are, as of now, just too many sections bearing notes, warnings, questions, and general feelings of instability and future change for me to feel comfortable including the properties from this module. I’m probably going to catch some flak for that.

grid-columns and grid-rows from the Grid Positioning Module Level 3, which effectively means means excluding the entire module. Some day maybe I’ll write a separate pocket reference just for the various CSS layout systems.

font-stretch. Its continued exclusion saddens me, because I am exactly the sort of sheep-stealing lowlife who would programmatically stretch and compress font faces and like it, but so far as I can tell nobody’s supporting the property. Alas.

move-to and
crop from the CSS3 Generated and Replaced Content module, dated 2003.

The Line module, dated 2002 and bearing my name for no reason I can recall. The one property listed there which I kept is vertical-align, and I just used the CSS2.1 definition.

After all that, I imagine you’re going to laugh uproariously when I tell what I did include: paged and aural properties. I know—I’m kind of poleaxed by my own double standard on that score. I included them for historical reasons (they’ve long been included) and also because they’re potentially very useful to a more accessible future. Besides, if we run out of pages, they’re in their own section and so very easy to cut.

I’m pretty sure I listed everything that I explicitly dropped, so if you spot something that I absolutely have to reinstate, here’s your chance to let me know!

Here’s an interesting little test case for transitions. Obviously you’ll need to visit it in a browser that supports CSS transitions, and additionally also CSS 2D transforms. (I’m not aware of a browser that supports the latter without supporting the former, but your rendering may vary.)

In Webkit and Gecko, hovering the first div causes the span to animate a 270 degree rotation over one second, but when you unhover the div the span immediately snaps back to its starting position. In Opera 11, the span is instantly transformed when you hover and instantly restored to its starting position when you unhover.

In all three (Webkit, Gecko, and Opera), hovering the second div triggers a one-second 270-degree rotation of the span. Unhovering causes the rotation animation to be reversed; that is, a one-second minus-270-degree rotation—or, if you mouseout from the div before the animation finishes, an rotation from that angle back to the starting position. Either way, it’s completely consistent across browsers.

The difference is that in the first test case, both the transform and the transition are declared on hover. Like this (edited for clarity):

It’s an interesting set of results. Only the second case is consistently animated across the tested browsers, but the first case only animates one direction in Webkit and Gecko. I’m not sure which, if any, of these results is more correct than the other. It could well be that they’re all correct, even if not consistent; or that they’re all wrong, just in different ways.

At any rate, the takeaway here is that you probably don’t want to apply your transition properties to the hover state of the thing you’re transitioning, but to the unhovered state instead. I say “probably” because maybe you like that it transitions on mouseover and instantly resets on mouseout. I don’t know that I’d rely on that behavior, though. It feels like the kind of thing that programmer action, or even spec changes, will take away.

I recently became re-acquainted with a ghost, and it looked very, very familiar. In the spring of 1995, just over a year into my first Web gig and still just over a year away from first encountering CSS, I wrote the following:

Writing to the Norm

No, not the fat guy on “Cheers.” Actually, it’s a fundamental issue every Web author needs to know about and appreciate.

Web browsers are written by different people. Each person has their own idea about how Web documents should look. Therefore, any given Web document will be displayed differently by different browsers. In fact, it will be displayed differently by different copies of the same browser, if the two copies have different preferences set.

Therefore, you need to keep this principle foremost in your mind at all times: you cannot guarantee that your document will appear to other people exactly as it does to you. In other words, don’t fall into the trap of obsessively re-writing a document just to get it to “fit on one screen,” or so a line of text is exactly “one screen wide.” This is as pointless as trying to take a picture that will always be one foot wide, no matter how big the projection screen. Changes in font, font size, window size, and so on will all invalidate your attempts.

On the other hand, you want to write documents which look acceptable to most people. How? Well, it’s almost an art form in itself, but my recommendation is that you assume that most people will set their browser to display text in a common font such as Times at a point size of somewhere between 10 and 15 points. While you shouldn’t spend your time trying to precisely engineer page arrangement, you also shouldn’t waste time worrying about how pages will look for someone whose display is set to 27-point Garamond.

That’s from “Chapter 1: Terms and Concepts” of Introduction to HTML, my first publication of note and the first of three tutorials dedicated to teaching HTML in a friendly, interactive manner. The tutorials were taken down a couple of years ago by their host organization, which made me a bit sad even though I understood why they didn’t want to maintain the pages (and deal with the support e-mail) any longer.

However, thanks to a colleague’s help and generosity I recently came into possession of copies of all three. I’m still pondering what to do about it. To put them back on the web would require a bit more work than just tossing them onto a server, and to make the quizzes fully functional would take yet more work, and after all this time some of the material is obsolete or even potentially misleading. Not to mention the page is laid out using a table (woo 1995!). On the other hand, they’d make an interesting historical document of sorts, a way to let you young whippersnappers know what it was like in the old days.

Reading through them, now sixteen years later, has been an interesting little trip down memory lane. What strikes me most, besides the fact that my younger self was a better writer than my current self, is how remarkably stable the Web’s fluidity has been over its lifetime. Yes, the absence of assuredly-repeatable layout is a core design principle, but it’s also the kind of thing that tends to get engineered away, particularly when designers and the public both get involved. Its persistence hints that it’s something valuable and even necessary. If I had to nominate one thing about the Web for the title of “Most Under-appreciated”, I think this would be it.

Accordingly, I created my own variant demo, where you can edit the head-embedded styles directly. While I was at it, I used another favorite trick of mine: I took the CSS used to make the styles appear in the browser and put them in their own style sheet that doesn’t get shown. Usually I id the style sheet to be displayed and style based on that. This time I had a better hook, in that the style element to be edited already had a contenteditable attribute. So:

Feel free to have fun editing the styles embedded in the document from within the document. As usual, do so at your own risk, no warranty is expressed or implied, not liable for damages arising from your use or failure to use, not a flying toy, blah blah blah. Share and enjoy!

(Incidentally, if anyone knows a markup- or CSS-based way to get around the Shift-Return-for-newline requirement in Gecko browsers, I’d love to hear about it.)

Over the past couple of months, I’ve been hacking together some CSS3 tests. I did this to try to figure out what should be included in the upcoming fourth edition of the CSS Pocket Reference (and thereafter CSS: The Definitive Guide) and didn’t plan to do anything public with them, but at this point, I figure what the heck. Maybe they’ll be of interest to others.

I was especially interested by the results for list-style-type, where I found some small spots of support for various types in various browsers. In contrast, WebKit supports most of the CSS3 types, so far as I can tell, though in my install several types were apparently mangled by a lack of appropriate fonts.

If you dig in, you’ll discover that the individual tests are all poured through some PHP. The reason for this is that the base test pages (which are straight HTML; see for example the list-style-type base) include neither navigation links nor vendor prefixes. That’s what the PHP handles. It’s a bit clumsy, URL-wise, and that’s why the index page of the tests warns that the tests’ URLs could change in the future. Not the index page: that will remain cool for as long as I have anything to say about it. I just can’t swear off tinkering with the URLs of the tests for the time being. It’s entirely possible that at some point in the future I’ll ice them down, but no guarantees.

I’m tossing these into the public sphere for three reasons. The first is that they might be useful to other people, and I’m always in favor of sharing stuff that might be useful. The second is that I may have committed grievous errors of fact, and many eyes make errors obvious. If you find an error, please let me know. I prefer that such reports be left as comments here since it lets many eyes evaluate the error reports too, but I’ll accept private mail as well.

The third is that it represents another turn of the wheel. I started my CSS career building tests to see what browsers got right and wrong, and every so often I come back to that same fundamental act. The other times I’ve done so, I’ve published what resulted. This time, I’m publishing a little earlier and little more in the raw, so to speak, but it’s still the same impulse—and by now, it’s Tradition.

So I hope you enjoy, or at least find useful, these tests and whatever other tests get built in the future!

I recently decided to create a CSS Editors Leaderboard, which is my attempt to rank the various editors of CSS modules based on the current process status of their modules, how current the modules are, and so on. It’s kind of a turn of the wheel for me, given that I started out my CSS career with browser support leaderboards. Now you can see who’s amassed the most spec points, and who’s made the most effective use of their time and energy. Who knows? Maybe some editors will try to game the system by pushing their specs along the process track. That’d be just awful.

One thing of note: I decided to write the leaderboard script so that it directly parses an HTML file to figure out the rankings. You can see the file yourself, if you like. At the moment it’s just a bunch of dls, but at some point I suspect I’ll convert it to a table. The advantage is that it’s easier for other people to fact-check the source data this way: just load it up in a browser.

I thought about just parsing specs directly but it seemed like overkill to load the entirety of the CSS2.1 module just to figure out the process status, publication date, and editor list. And then do that same thing for every one of the 38 tracked modules. This way I have the leaderboard and a central summary of the modules’ status, and hopefully the latter will be even more human-readable in the future.

Anyway, it was a fun little project and now it’s loose in the world. Enjoy.